User talk:Kolja21

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike, and you can help. Go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familarise yourself with:

Wikidata:Tools - A collection of user-developed JS tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

The colors in the sections of Help:Description try to distinguish the section from the other to ensure that your brain associates color and images to text and MEMORIES it. :) Cheers! Raoli (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have done well! In Italy, every municipality has a name different from the other by law so there is no problem for Italian municipalities so "Gemeinde in der Provinz Pescara, Italien" it is now correct, but coming soon may be wrong because the Italian state has indicated the deletion of this province. (here the others) :) --Raoli (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean this? I don't understand what you did here, there are a lot of changes but the result seems to be the same page without the english label and description...--Phso2 (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Phso2, there have been about 8 items with the label "Iphitos". The problem was, that disambiguation pages and articles were mixed. I've fixed the links and deleted 2 of them. --Kolja21 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kolia21, I don't know if you are involved with the Wikidata team, but maybe you can answer to some questions posted here. Thanks! --Aubrey (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Aubrey, since you are "obsessed with bibliographic data" Wikidata must give you a headache. It's a lot of work and we do it in a very unsystematic way. I like your list with the three different tasks. That's the way we should work. --Kolja21 (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not happy with new properties like "located in administrative unit" and "type of administrative division" that have been added without examples. We had ongoing discussions on Wikidata:Property proposal and WD:RFD, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who haven't seen the WD:PC discussion. If "the template can infer" the info from P131 you have to explain it on property proposal, otherwise we will have state, province whatever tomorrow again. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW: It's been a while ago, since you have added Property:P92: "legally established by", with the description: "experimental; plus I dont know the proper wording". Have you lost interest in your experiment? --Kolja21 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not read all of Wikidata:Property proposal. To me, the Project Chat is the main place to discuss questions that may benefit from a wide audience, and I imagined that once policy choices were relatively clear there, they could be considered settled. It is true however, that the property would deserve better documentation.

I have not lost interest in Property:P92, but as it turns out, the propery has been used, and a page making wide usage of it has even been adertised by Wikidata on twitter, so I did not delete it. Of course, once things become become clearer on how to use sources, I will take care of the necessary updates. --Zolo (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kolja21, I'm sorry if I stress you regard to the deletion of P31, but I have a question for you after your answer here. In meta I read the draft for Wikidata data model and in particular the InstanceOfSnak type. It will be implemented in the future? If I understood correctly, properties as P31 will became obsolete with this data type... Thank you very much for your answer! --Paperoastro (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Paperoastro, sorry to disappoint you. I'm not part of the development team and I don't know what parts of the data model will be realized. Imho for the developers a property like "Is a" will not become obsolete, it's the future. We add whatever info we like and the software will transform it somehow to "structured knowledge". The machines take power. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer, that partially clarify the situation. I'm waiting for the end of the discussion for the deletion of P31 and, if necessary, I will propose the creation of the necessary properties as your suggestion. ;) --Paperoastro (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your input at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/VIAFbot. As suggestions started coming in, I thought it'd be nice to have a small IRC meeting planning the bot task specifics together. If you want to be a part of the meeting please fill out this doodle poll, and I'll set up the rest of the meeting. Tentative agenda:

Good idea. In two week: thats Easter Holidays. I don't know where I will be at that time, but it should be possible to follow the IRC meeting with the laptop. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Kolja, See discussion above. I noticed that you were one of early editors of de:Vorlage:Normdaten and may-be you can shed some light at the mystery of current formatting of LCCN used by that template and all the others that followed. --Jarekt (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Jarekt, I will be happy to try, but the link you have provided ("Note that the LCCN has to be formatted in a special way") says it all: The LCCN has been developed in the pre-digital era and is hard to use. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kolja, have you seen this? I know it's "yet another place to discuss books metadata", but at list we can discuss on a single, complex topic in one place. I've seen your table here, and I think we are close to complete at least the core properties for books. In the Talk page we are discussing some methodological/theoretical issues, but I think important issues: if wikidata will serve infoboxes, it must serve different infoboxes from different projects, and different projects have different purposes and "perspectives" of what a "book" means... Anyway, have you see this? It's a little mapping I created to clear my mind about different infoboxes and their usage of metadata. Hope it's helpful for what we/you are doing. --Aubrey (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aubrey, yes I've seen all of it and the Books task force is on my watchlist ;) Your doing a great work! --Kolja21 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

-) I tried to syncronize my mapping with the table here. Are you able to create properties? I find myself baffled by the confusion here, thus I'm not creating any properties yet. But maybe it's time to set all the properties we listed, and then see what goes on. My main confuzion is that conversation are going on in too many places, and I'd like very much to have all the book people in the same place, at least :-) --Aubrey (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a lot of work, since it has to go through Wikidata:Property proposal (or we say it has been discussed and thoroughly planed on Wikidata:Books task force). Unfortunately the Wikidata software and some of the main properties have first be deployed and than were discussed, renamed, improved, discussed and so on. So right now, I have no time for the important work like the book properties. More users are interested in POV properties like sexual orientation and ethnic group than tradionelle culture ;( --Kolja21 (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a good example. I ran some more test edits I'm looking over it right now for bugs. If you get a moment, see if you can find any mistakes or comments too. So far, I see that LCCN's need to be standardized to including the '/' or not, and that ISNIs need to get the same link making tech as the other IDs. Anything else? Maximilianklein (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I created this task force so the guidelines which were conceived in the Discussion dont rot in the project Chat archive. If you could help expand and or link transfer to a better place were newcomers can profit from this it would be appreciated. Regards--Saehrimnir (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

My doubt was about an specific animal not animals in general (like species). Maybe it's better if I don't classified these types. Thank you for the concern. - Sarilho1 (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarilho, animals are always type s, that includes individual animals. If your are unsure you can take an example like Knut (Q159697), the polar bear, and look it up in the GND database. Cheers --Kolja21 (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that you got the property creator rights. Please can you take part to a small discussion about how we have to management property proposal here ? Thank you Snipre (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't understand what your message is about. Are you trying to accuse me of being a sock puppet? But if you are, why would you talk to me about it? Why not just go to the admins and let them check it out?

Please don't try to create a personal conflict just because we disagree on a certain matter. And also please try to be more clear in the future with what you're trying to say.

Would you have a look at the format question at Property talk:P396? You participated in the discussion of the property some time ago. -- Docuat 07:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the Italian system with their "Voci di autorità". At the main web site www.sbn.it there are only a few authority records. Most Italian records seems to be hold on local basis. --Kolja21 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ricordisamoa, an item can be a) a single object (person, term etc.) or b) a disambiguation page. en:Authority control is identifying an object. So a disambiguation page like en:Abandon (disambiguation) and authority control are mutually exclusive; they don't fit together. It's like saying Smith (surname) is living in Rom and he was born 1975. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to thank you for fixing those Tolkien characters I had mistakenly given two GND types. I was tired and I was using a userscript to add properties faster, so I didn't notice the error. I'll do my best to avoid that in the future. Anyway, thanks. Mushroom (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know it. Thank you. I did so, because I thought they were full records, not just placeholders. I think this means I'll just stop adding those. Anyway, may you give me a document where I can learn more about them? I mean, why GND does this in the first place?

Oh, if you answer in your talk, please put a note in mine in order to let me know you answered, thanks. :) --217.200.185.178 16:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC) (Sannita unlogged)

Meh, I see... I think Wikidata will have a greater impact that we thought in the beginning. Tomorrow I'll have a meeting with some executives of the Italian institute that oversees a large part of the public libraries in Italy, and this will be yet another big issue to take care of. Their data are quite completely isolated in VIAF, so one big part of the work will be to try to merge their records with the main VIAF records... Not to mention that there are many other libraries, with tons of good data which are NOT in their network...

So, I just had a thought: what if we notice these undifferentiated records too, so that VIAF could notice back to GND which records to delete? I'm not telling you I'll continue to add those records here on WD, but this could be yet another feedback we can provide. --217.200.185.145 11:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC) (Sannita still unlogged)

In German Wikipedia there is a list de:Wikipedia:PND/Fehlermeldung where we collect authority errors. Every month the GND team gets a copy. With Italy imho the biggest problem is, that there is no central authority data base. When I look at "Voci di autorità" at www.sbn.it I can't find for examples the authority records stored at the "Catalogo del Polo Bolognese". --Kolja21 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have the Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo Unico (Central Institute for the Single Directory of the Italian libraries and bibliographic information, ICCU) which oversees, as I said a large part of the public libraries in Italy, through the Servizio Bibliotecario Nazionale (National Library Service, SBN). Unfortunately, ICCU works as a federative agency of several libraries and groups of libraries, and... well, they don't distinguish themselves to be so "open" to the public. :) Plus, the data belong to the single libraries, so it is a complicated situation.

Anyway, now things should change a bit, since we had this talk and we'll probably involve Wikimedia Italy to reach a proper agreement with them. The list about errors you linked seems very interesting, probably we're going to copy that. :P Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 17:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You recently participated in a deletion discussion for P107 - main type (GND). The discussion has been closed, as it is clear that a resolution won't come from PfD, and an RfC has been opened on the matter at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Primary sorting property. You are invited to participate there. Please note that this is a mass delivered message, and that I will not see any replies you leave on this page.

Well I'm not a native English speaker, but what would you call it, if users repeat for weeks and months the same attacks? I don't mind if someone repeat the same thing four or five times, but these attacks are fare beyond any tolerable degree. (Nonetheless I did a reverse of my edit because of the risk of misunderstanding.) --Kolja21 (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You might claim "tendentious" or "disruptive", but "psychological terror"? Not okay. And that's only if they are "attacks". Everything he has said has been quite civil, so attack is also not the correct word. And even if that is an issue, you need to bring it up at WD:AN for anything to happen with what you might call a long term problem. Thanks for redacting it. --Izno (talk)

I have no problem with a single statement. I wouldn't even call them tendentious or disruptive. My problem is the relentless repetition of "don't use this property" and "delete this property" in dozens of pages over and over again, for days, weeks and months. And there is no end in sight. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

While I understand your frustration (but agree with Emw on the issue of the property), the edge that you have been putting into much of your arguments is not useful for the collaborative atmosphere.

If you really think that Emw's behavior is a problem, please leave a note at WD:AN so that you can get admin or community help. --Izno (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Imho there have been to many discussions. There are a few, but very tough users that, if they don't like the outcome of a RFD, start the same discussion under a new name again, and then again, and again till they succeed. So I don't think starting a discussion on the topic discussion will help. I'm out. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

While I realize that I am not the best person to chime in here, I should point out that that there has only been two deletion requests for P107, made by two different users. Wikidata:Requests for comment/Primary sorting property‎ (and Help talk:High-level classification) really has a broader purpose, as even users who did not support deleting this property suggested that we should think about ways to replace/complement it. As far as I know, user:Sven Manguard, who launched the RFC, had never taken part in any discussion about the property before. --Zolo (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You missed the point of what I said. If you think that one or multiple editors are being problematic, you need to raise that in a forum where those editors(') behavior can be discussed. That you have been unwilling to do so either means that you don't actually believe what you're saying, that you don't want your own behavior to be examined, or that you don't care. None of those options have anything to deal with what is being discussed but with your own behavior (in possible reaction to others'). --Izno (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This confident interpretation of my words confirm to me that stop working for Wikidata is right. I'm an editor on Wikipedia (and later Commons) for 9 years, so I think I have enough experience to judge the work climate here. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't use BnF very often. Their numbers are tricky. Take for example Earl Mac Rauch (Q133562). BnF = 14045221, but if you want to generate the URL you need to add "140452218". --Kolja21 (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I have been marking many proposals in other categories as "not done"... I don't particularly enjoy shattering property proposers' dreams of representing "absolutely everything" in WD, but if we manage to detect the rejected proposals soon (and archive them), the others will get more attention. Oh yes, viaf data... we love it and we hate it, I'm totally in favour of fullscreen warning signs :) --Micru (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You recently changed the label of MusicBrainz place ID (P1004) from "MusicBrainz-Örtlichkeits-ID" to "MusicBrainz-Orts-ID". Probably because it is shorter and the direct translation of "place". However, the official translation is "Örtlichkeit" (see beta.musicbrainz.org and switch to german), since "Ort" is too narrowly connotated with things like "Ortschaft" (which fit under MusicBrainz area ID (P982)). The subtypes in MB are "venues" and "studios" and this is what is meant by "Örtlichkeit". --JonnyJD (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jonny, I thought it was a Google translation. "Örtlichkeit" is in German a synonym for toilette, so "Örtlichkeits-ID" sounds funny. If they what to make a distinction between "Ort" and "Ortschaft" it's hard to find a good translation. Germans probably would use "Location-ID", since it's more comprehensive than "Veranstaltungsort" (venue). --Kolja21 (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You are not the first one to bring it up, but I only know "Örtchen" for toilet. Nobody here (Berlin) says "Örtlichkeit" for toilet and I never heard anyone using it like that. "Location" is also what I would use, but it also isn't really german. I'll just leave it like that and wait for the first person to complain or change it. I'll also link this discussion on the talk page. There was also some discussion in #musicbrainz-de on freenode, but there is no archive for that channel. --JonnyJD (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree the radio station entry is ambiguous. In English the phrase refers to both an institution that broadcasts programs, but also a piece of engineering that transmits. My description was based on reading a few of the wiki links -- eg de:Rundfunksender / fr:Station de radio (which both refer to the piece of engineering = the transmitter) but also es:Radio (medio de comunicación), which refers to the whole topic. Then the page en:Radio station redirects to 'Radio Broadcasting', again the transmission as opposed to the media company.

Perhaps it is the English title that is wrong? Smb1001 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Since I know you're active with identifier-like properties, it seems like we have multiple ways of specifying the property "X identifier" and "X ID". Do you think it would be a good idea to standardize the naming to one or the other? --Izno (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. AFAIK most users prefer "X identifier", but I'm no native English speaker so I'll use whatever is becoming common. Personally I prefer the shortest label for a property. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

True, "control number" is a synonym. I don't think anyone of the Wikidata:Books task force will mind if you change it to ID or identifier. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: In one case we have to be careful: There are authorities and editions IDs that shouldn't be mixed. For example: SUDOC authorities ID (P269) and SUDOC editions (P1025). Authority IDs are for identifying a person, an organisation or a work, edition IDs are used for a single copy of a book (translation, 2nd edition etc.). --Kolja21 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The said user tells me on IRC that you are accusing him of sockpuppetry here and Google Translate seems to affirm that. Do you have any evidence to support that allegation? If not, I ask that you retract your claim. Thanks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Reinhart, User:לערי ריינהארט, is well known long user, with every strange, let's say "individual edits". There where endless discussions with him on German, Romanian, and Esperanto Wikipedia, since he makes his own rules with winding paths that do not fit in any concept developed by the WP community. Hence my request to him: Please do concentrate on one subject and only use one account! Reinhart has multiple aliases like User:Gangleri, or User:I18n and loves to experiment. I'm not accusing him of sockpuppetry (he has never hidden), but of a lack of teamwork. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This is simply not constructive. Yes, all Latin Americanists are social scientists, and no, not all of them are philologists (I would say only few of them are, so that statement is basically nonsense). I know that because I have read tons of papers written by Latin Americanists because of my degree on Latin American studies. Please stop edit warring, or at least give reasons. Andreasmháblame / just talk to me 17:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Andreasm, you can't take possession of a hole occupation only because your personal view of a Latin Americanists is the one of a social scientist. A social scientist is not a philologist. In addition this item is used not only for English. In other languages a Latin Americanist is, if you like it or not, mainly a philologist. I see no problem in using both: social scientist and philologist. Compare: americanist (Q16308157) and other philologists. This is not my personal view. You can look it up: Amerikanist, "Oberbegriff(e): Philologe". Cheers --Kolja21 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Who is taking possession of anything? I think the problem here is that you do not understand the use of subclass of (P279). Like I said, not all Latin Americanists are philologists, therefore Latin Americanist (Q16334430) cannot be a subclass of philologist (Q13418253). It is not my personal view that all Latin Americanists are social scientists, but simply a fact easy to verify. For instance, all area studies at the University of Oxford are part of the School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies, and this department belongs to the Social Sciences Division not the Humanities Division where the Philology department is (here) Once again, stop your edit warring, specially including other items like this one. Andreasmháblame / just talk to me 23:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You are taking possession. Why? Because your not accepting the simple and proven fact that at least some if not most Latin Americanists are philologist. If you are a social scientist, fine with me. If you want to have an item for Latin Americanist that are only social scientist you have to create a new item. (I don't know what kind of degree who have received but I have a PhD and I've studied both social science and philology.) --Kolja21 (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand where did you get that from me. I shall rephrase (or repeat myself): not all Latin Americanists are philologists (some of them are, as we both agree, but not all). Therefore, Latin Americanist cannot be a subclass of philologist. For that to happen, all of them should be philologists, but that is not the case. Anyway, that is how the property subclass of (P279) works. Finally, I remind you that you need to assume good faith, so please stop accusing me of taking possession when I am not. I believe this issue is due to your lack of understanding of the before mentioned property, nothing else. Andreasmháblame / just talk to me 01:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You've changed Latin Americanist into a subclass of social scientist and deleted philologist. In your words: For that to happen, all of them should be social scientists, but that is not the case. I wouldn't mind if this change would only effect Latin Americanists but we have all kind of philologists and of cause talking about literature and language often results in an overlap with other disciplines. Just one of many examples: For Romance studies (Q1277348) FelGru added over a year ago subclass of (P279): philology (Q40634). If we follow you, we needed to change Q16267749 nevertheless into subclass of social scientist. --Kolja21 (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me out more wrong uses of the property subclass of (P279) (according to its description: "All of these items are instances of those items; this item is a subclass of that item"). So, philologist is out of the question in the case of Latin Americanist. As for all the other supposed subclasses of philologist, I shall check them up. Andreasmháblame / just talk to me 03:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it doesn't bring us any further if you keep insiting that your right, because your right. As I said before if you want a strict interpretation of subclass of (P279) you need to change Latin Americanist (Q16334430) to an ambiguous item and add at least two new items "Latin Americanist (philologist)" and "Latin Americanist (social scientist)". Since we have a lot of sciences and even more scientists who think they are the only "real" scientist in their field and unwilling to work with other scientists you can spend the next few weeks adding new sub sciences. In the best case one science item for every professorship ;) --Kolja21 (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

So, do you agree or not that some Latin Americanists (not all of them) are philologists? If you do agree with that (which you actually did before), then subclass of (P279) is out of the question. I am not interpreting strictly anything: that property is being wrongly used in this case, because not all A are a subclass of B. If you still find it hard to understand this explanation, you could read Help:Basic membership properties. Andreasmháblame / just talk to me 14:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You won't find an answer by reading Help:Basic membership properties, it's more a subject of en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I appreciate your work for WD but I can't help you. The facts haven't change since our first conversation. Authority control certify that Americanist, Romanist etc. are part of philologists. As Hispanist, for example, is part of Romanist. Your are saying that "all Latin Americanists are social scientists". Your argument: "... because I have read tons of papers written by Latin Americanists". I know that it's a legitimate point of view to say not all (Latin) Americanist are philologist. (Read the above statement about ambiguous items.) I've spend half my life at universities and I know that we can have the same debate about many more sciences. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain me why have you not undone your edition which includes Latin Americanist as a subclass of philologist? You said that only some Latin Americanists are philologists, so it is plain nonsense to keep the subclass of (P279) in there. I do not understand either why you keep mentioning other items (Romanist, etc) when I am only talking about Latin Americanist. I have not ask for any help, but thank you for your effort. Unfortunately, you seem unable to understand how subclass of (P279) works, which is a little worrying given that you keep using it. Andreasmháblame / just talk to me 23:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about Latin Americanist. You are talking about Latin Americanist and your way you see Latin Americanist and your resistance to exept any other view. If you don't even try to understand - after hours of talking - that Latin Americanistic is part of the academic system (like any other philology or area study) it's just a waste of time. I told you the facts. Ignore the sources, create "Latin Americanist (social scientist)" and do not bother me again. EOD. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Postscript: To a third reader who might think I was rude. Here is the prove that the academic kindergarden called "university" hasn't changed. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the warning. I've been looking at the Books task force page and I get why editions and works are different, but I don't totally understand how they are supposed to be linked here. To take the example of Hamlet (Q41567), which is about the work, it seems to me the currently linked English wikisource is wrong, since it is a particular edition, and it should be the disambiguation page s:Hamlet. And the current property "edition of" does not belong there. Is that right? But then what about (say) the German translation, which is the only German version, but does reflect a specific edition? Perhaps if you point to a fairly complex case that is correctly entered into WikiData I could understand this better. Rigadoun (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rigadoun: The examples given at Wikidata:WikiProject Books are - or at least should have been - checked and include complex cases. The Hamlet case is special. The disambiguation page s:Hamlet would fit, if it contains a list of different editions. But it links to the drama, "Tales from Shakespeare", and "Characters of Shakespeare's Plays." s:Hamlet is like Hamlet (Q224491) = Wikipedia disambiguation page. If the drama page s:The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark would be about a single edition the Wikisource link should be moved to this edition. (The Hamlet case can't be solved by Wikidata. It has to be done by English Wikisource. That's why the page has the warning sign: "The source document of this text is not known.") --Kolja21 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I didn't noticed until now that Datensatz im Katalog aufrufen contains the right URL for the record. I'll now pay more attention to it. Best, Lugusto (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I shall certainly do as you advise! I was looking for such showcases and untranslated properties myself, so as to have it as complete as possible with all kinds of things translated. Thank you for the idea and do drop others if they come to you. Cheers --B. Jankuloski (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi I just wanted to ask you for help. From my point of view it whould be much better to have https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q466511 as a property.
Since it describes nearly every combustion engine. How to convert it or how to start a convertations discussion in the right way.

Hi, I just found
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1002
unfortunately I dont know which values are available for the Property.
From my point of view there should be something like Star, Row, V, L, w and Wankel engine types available. I could not find them.
Could you might help me a little bit?

I don't know if it's used outside Italy. It's an official category which by law every publisher has to be labeled with (or not). ISTAT owns the term/definition itself. Another item would become "owned" by ISTAT too by being a subclass of this, not by being an instance of. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It was interesting to discover that Wikidata has Property:P1368 (LNB identifier). What source is this property populated from?

The property proposal says "library catalog www.lnb.lv or VIAF" but what is the actual data source used? Not sure if you can batch-extract these IDs from www.lnb.lv. In any case, could you point me to the tool that is used to add LNB identifiers? (assuming it's done automatically) -- CaptSolo (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to request that you please desist from making boarder line personal attacks against Pigsonthewing such as calling him an a 'a massive PR' user and a spammer. It is not constructive or helpful to the environment and only serves to make it toxic. John F. Lewis (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sergey kudryavtsev: Imho this item is about the work (book) in general not about a single edition. Was it only published once (1835)? Usually a link to a Wikipedia article is a strong hint that the item is about a work. I'm not sure in this case so I reverted my edit. --Kolja21 (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi! As you know, few days ago I merged uk:Пропанол (Q12144940) with another interwikis (Q3407542). You reverted it and said not to "merge article with disambig"... But the first page ISN'T article, it's disambig too! --Олег.Н (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You can move your page but you can not merge the items. Wikidata works independent from Wikipedia. An item with the property instance of (P31): "subject xyz" can't be merged with a disambiguation page. If there is 1 article and 200 disambiguation pages you still can't merge them. You link the 1 article to the item that was created for this subject and link the 200 disambiguation pages to the disambiguation item. Even if there are 0 WP articles the item will still remain if it met the criteria WD:N. --Kolja21 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Finally I've understood Can you tell me, what should I do now? Just move pages from disambig (now there are 3 of them in that item) and nominate it for deletion? (sorry, I'm so nooby in non-WP projects) --Олег.Н (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a difficult case. The problem are not the 2 items at Wikidata. (Both are correct and can remain.) The problem are articles like ro:Propanol with a definition, a section "see also" and authority control. Since this article is short someone add the lable "disambiguation". This is contradictory, but unimportant for Wikipedia. In Wikidata this doesn't work. The best way would be to corrrect the error at roWikipedia. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I propose that undifferentiated GNDs be kept/restored for now, at least for unique names clearly associated with specific publications, because they are not simple placeholders, but provisional IDs which will be eventually replaced with final IDs, though the process is slow. Until then, I think name GNDs are OK. For now, only about 50 percent of GNDs are differentiated (personal), and thus Wikidata is missing a great deal of DNB author info. -GZ

Hi GZ, Walter Eisen (Q21416159), deutscher Bibliothekar, Tn 101467389 shows him as the author of Ueber β-p-Oxy-m-methoxyphenyl-α-hydrazino-propionsäure (Diss. Köln 1926). You could only link Tns to disambiguation pages. Long time ago a Tn was changed (in some cases) into a Tp. That were the "good old times" of the PND. Now Tns are left empty, changed into a redirect or (after a few months) get deleted. BTW: If you check User:KasparBot/GND Type N you will find out that in many cases Tps exists. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean, but for example, for Wilhelm Lahm (Q21406850) the Tn seems to serve the purpose, there is no confusion. It is even used in Lahm's German Wikipedia article. And I can give you many examples. I think each case should be treated differently. When a Tp becomes available, the Tn should be replaced (as Wikis are dynamic entities), but until then, in some cases it seems to be useful.-GZ

No, you don't see what I mean. An error is an error, and we don't have a special list for smaller and bigger Tn errors. Wilhelm Lahm (Q21406850) was born in 1856 and than again in 1889. That's a miracle, proven by VIAF:313039861! And today, in the year 2015, he owns a shop in Düsseldorf. Authority control means to identify a person. Looking at one catalog (DNB) and guessing that this catalog 1) will never change and 2) no other library or archive will use this Tn is naive and careless. --Kolja21 (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Then, how to identify these authors? Is there a better way? There is no perfect identification anyway. Suppose that Wilhelm Lahm in Düsseldorf writes a book and gets a Tp. Then I also write a book under the name of Wilhelm Lahm. It will appear under his Tp, although it's not written by him. When you publish a book, they might not ask for your ID or birth date. -GZ

I've already read it, and it reads that confusion is always possible. -GZ

Wow you are a fast reader. Read the two articles again and take your time. In 120 seconds also other people are not able to understand the text. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I've read it before. I quote: "authority control is not about creating a perfect seamless system but rather it is an ongoing effort to keep up with these changes and try to bring "structure and order" to the task of helping users find information". -GZ

Well, that's what I said. You need time to read and understand the text. The quote is about "Subject headings": "Subject headings from the Library of Congress fulfill a function similar to authority records ..." And of cause you should know that your quote is misleading. The sentence beginn with the words: "According to one view ..." So for the beginning just try to remember: A Tn (name) is not a Tp (person)! Think about a police man that will try to arrest you, only because your name is "GZ". He is only doing his job and as you know: "There is no perfect identification anyway." --Kolja21 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your argumentation is logically inconsistent. Author identification is not based on legal documents, but on publicly available information, which can be misleading. -GZ

I agree with @Kolja21: Linking name identifiers to persons is not acceptable. In the German Wikipedia there is a system in place that includes these IDs, and there is even an error report page (w:de:WP:PND/F). As long as Wikidata doesn't have something similar, it's misleading to link name identifiers with persons. Jonathan Groß (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

OK @Jonathan Groß:, I agree. But if, let's say, a book in the DNB catalogue appears under the name of an author who only has Tn and not Tp, can that book be added on the author's Wikidata page, supposing that the DNB catalogue is the only reliable source for the book? -GZ

I don't think we should link Tn to person items in any given case. Even if a Tn has only links to books of a single person, it still relates to a name only, not a person. If you find a Tn that you think can be easily transformed into a Tp, you should use the GND's error report form (as long as we don't have an error report page here on Wikidata). Jonathan Groß (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry to chime in: Why should any library catalogue be considered a reliable source for authorship? Admittedly there are examples in the LC Authority file where librarians document phone calls to authors and publishers to verify some information: This counts. Also do other cases like citing biographical or bibliographical databases as foundation - but this also happens in the authority files, not in the bibliographical records. One can think of but I'm not aware of any example where a librarian documents his decision on determining authorship in the record for a "book". So mere listings in the catalog under the name (with or without birth dates etc.) are always educated guesses but by no means should be considered authoritative. -- Gymel (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was saying. Even authority files are almost always based on educated guesses, and we got to work with what we have. -GZ

But I agree with @Jonathan Groß: that it's best to contact libraries when we have uncertainties. They have specialists who are the best at "educated guessing". But I still can't find that GND error report form...-GZ

"... there is even an error report page (w:de:WP:PND/F)" - just click on the link. BTW: A library is doing more than "educated guessing". They doing an autopsy: Reading the preface or author information given in the book. Of cause they can make errors, but for us it is a reliable source. Only if we have a second source or a justified assumption that an error occurred, further research is needed. --Kolja21 (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, libraries record the evidence given on the book. This is reliable inasmuch I don't have to check out or buy the book to know (to a certain extent) what is printed on the title page and in what form the book itself presents its author. And with the "book in hand" they also have access to circumstantial evidence like other works of the same author mentioned in the blurb. So their identification of the author has a deeper foundation than that what eventually gets distilled into the catalog record. Unfortunately they usually don't provide reference, even for surprising identifications which cannot be comprehended by studying the record alone. So I deem authorship claimed by a library catalogue as beeing of the same quality as in a Wikipedia article without proper references: It's plausible but in its authoritativeness restricted to what can be understood from the resource. So if you need a reference that a certain book exists, library catalogues are OK for me, but if an ordinary library catalogue tells me that a book B was written by X and a publication states Y as author, I would give the library catalogue only as reference for the claim that authorship has sometimes been confused... -- Gymel (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And not all books contain information about the author. And not all editors are able to provide such information. I think conclusive author info should be required in all countries when requesting an ISBN or CIP code. But for older books and authors the research is sometimes very difficult. -GZ

May I remind you that we are working for an online Encyclopedia? We are not an intelligence agency and a library is not a registry office. It is completely sufficient if you don't mix a Tp with a Tn. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"... there is even an error report page (w:de:WP:PND/F)" - I was referring to a possible report/contact form of the GND authority, not of Wikipedia. -GZ

Can you please explain your edits here and why you bothered to revert my edit to then do the same by yourself just a few seconds later? That looks like nonsense to me. At least you cared to keep the descriptions I added... --Nono314 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to bother you. The item was a total mess: disambiguous and school of Buddhism (Q222516) at the same time. My first try to restore the original (non disambiguous) version was an error. Cheers --Kolja21 (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Good afternoon! Same name and family but different people. VIAF:76414081 was archbishop of Palermo and VIAF:76414081 was his nephew, also his secretary and the writer of Topografía e historia general de Argel. Sharing given name was quite common in those time Basque noble families (specially if your uncle was a potential archbishop). As you have understanding of spanish you can check Auñamendi Encyclopedia: uncle & nephew. Best regards! Marklar (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you've added images to lexemes. I presume images should be reserved for the upcoming sense entity, since they strictly speaking describe senses and not lexemes (this would also avoid duplication of image properties). --Njardarlogar (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I stop. But without pictures it is less fun. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

As previsouly discuss, I started a page to explain the morphology of breton : User:VIGNERON/breton. It's just a start that I plan to improve (with details and references) but could you take a look and tell me what you think?

Thanks for starting the simplification of allowed GND-ID qualifiers. A comment regarding this diff: the issue was actually fixed by User:DeltaBot in this edit. It appears as if there was no change, but the bot actually removed an invisible character (trailing right-to-left mark (Q1017375) in this case). In case of apparent false-positive format errors on covi pages, it is often a good idea to look for such problems.

Finally a comment on comments or removals within the covi pages: they will be overwritten by Ivan’s bot in the next iteration, no matter what. The bot does not care about user input, Ivan just downloads a (differential) dump of entire Wikidata roughly daily, somehow evaluates it locally on his machine and writes the results to the covi report pages. I wouldn’t spend any effort into commenting the bot’s work. Viele Grüße, —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I tried undoing the wrong merge according to your advice.
May I ask you to take a look to see if it is okay now?
And also maybe advise how to merge the articles on the book series
(which I wanted to do in the first place)
Thank you! Qsecofr (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Qsecofr: There are items and there are articles. If you want to move an article you don't need to merge two items. Since you can't merge Trilogy of desire (Q4463074) (subject) with Q5179811 (disambiguation page), you need first to change en:Trilogy of Desire from disambiguation page into an article [15], then you can move the article. In this case it's tricky, because Trilogy of Desire is to short for an article, so I don't now if this solution will last. --Kolja21 (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Would you mind initiating one or two of the properties waiting to be created? I have something like 12 of them ready right now and I'm having trouble finding an active property creator as most must be gone to the beach or something! Are you around? Thierry Caro (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Thierry Caro: A link would be helpful. What proposals are important for you? --Kolja21 (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you. Anyone of the ten first ones in Category:Properties ready for creation. I'm fine with you just pushing the creation button for a few of them and letting me fill all the rest. I've done this before with other property creators. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Kolja, as you’ve already seen I have overhauled Help:P227 yesterday to make it more in line with typical Wikidata procedures. I still plan to update some things this weekend before we should request translation, and I also want to further simplify the list of allowed qualifiers to be used as separators for this property. The simpler the situation is, the easier it is for users to engage in covi repairs.

In my opinion, these qualifiers shouldn’t be allowed any longer, but they are still in use in very little numbers:

For P131, P571, and P1476 I need to find a better way to manage the cases, while for P585 the solution would probably be to create some items for specific event instances, and distribute the multiple GND identifiers of the listed items to them. The first two P101 and P106 are not used anyway. Do you have any ideas what to do here? To investigate, you can find the affected items in the queries above…

Hi, I 100% agree, with must go towards a visual dictionary (Q861712) but my point is that we don't need to redundantly store pictures in the Lexeme to get the pictures of the Lexeme. Look at my query. PS: I've add a sens on Kairo (L2276) so you can now get a picture without the picture. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No, imho they are helpful and they are only stored once in WikiCommons. Cheers --Kolja21 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand, images are already on Lexemes (need to be inferred but still), how is it helpful to store them twice (or thrice or more)? And I don't understand why you mention Wikimedia Commons, I'm talking about Wikidata here. Could you explain a bit more your point of view? If we really go down the way of duplicating all images, there is a lot of constraints and documentations in the structure that need to be changed. I can start a discussion to make these massive changes but I need to understand why first. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem for you to write in German (Ich kann verstehen ein bisschen, aber ich lieber schreibe auf Englisch).

So, Commons is not a problem here, we agree on that. But we have a rule on Wikidata to only store one unique image in the database (but if we choose different picture for items and lexemes, like in your example - which are a bit strange but I think I got the idea -, this rule is not broken).

Could you precise your last sentence? Lexemes are not a dictionary and Wikidata never store images themselves (always just data, in this case a link to images on Commons), so your sentence is a bit strange.

As I said, I think I got the idea, I will start a discussion on the Lexicographical talk page (because there is other point to discuss, like: should the link of images be put at the Lexemes or ?).